Karur Stampede: SC Directs Petitioner to CBI Amid Allegations of Threats by State Officials

New Delhi - The Supreme Court of India on Thursday directed a petitioner in the Karur stampede case, who alleged he was being threatened and coerced by Tamil Nadu state officials, to approach the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with his complaint. In a separate matter on the same day, the apex court addressed a dispute between the Madras Race Club and the Tamil Nadu government, clarifying the scope of an interim order related to public works on disputed land.

A bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi disposed of an interlocutory application filed by S. Prabhakaran, a family member of one of the 41 individuals who tragically died in the stampede on September 27. The incident occurred during a rally for actor Vijay's political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). The Court’s order provides a specific channel for redressal for the petitioner, underscoring the gravity of allegations involving state interference in a high-profile investigation.

Allegations of Coercion and Intimidation

The application, which was brought before the bench through an urgent oral mention by Advocate Balaji Srinivasan, contained serious allegations against state officials and members of the ruling party. Mr. Prabhakaran, one of the original petitioners who had successfully sought a CBI probe into the stampede, claimed he was subjected to immense pressure to withdraw his petition from the Supreme Court.

In his application, the petitioner detailed a campaign of intimidation that allegedly took place between October 10, when the Supreme Court reserved its order on transferring the case, and October 13, when the order for a CBI investigation was officially passed. He submitted that during this critical period, armed police were stationed outside his residence.

The application stated, “They individually and collectively issued threats to the petitioner and offered illegal inducements with the illegal objective to withdraw his writ petition.” Specifically, Mr. Prabhakaran alleged that a member of the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party offered him ₹20 lakh and a government job in exchange for withdrawing his case.

Voicing his apprehension, the petitioner submitted, “Threats are issued by persons who are in position of power and have resources of the State at their disposal… The tone and tenor of these ruling party members was extremely threatening and menacing.” He further explained his reluctance to approach local authorities, stating a belief that those threatening him were acting at the behest of their superiors within the police force, leading to fears of ridicule or physical harm if he filed a local complaint.

The Supreme Court's Directive

During the hearing, Justice Maheshwari addressed the petitioner's counsel, stating, “Go to the CBI...put it out to the CBI. The CBI will look into it.”

The bench, while allowing the petitioner to approach the central agency, deliberately refrained from commenting on the merits of the allegations. The formal order recorded:

"It is contended that the petitioner has been threatened and cajoled by the officials of the State. However, in this regard, it is suffice to say that the petitioner may apply to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Except to say the same, at present, no further orders are required to be passed on the interlocutory applications."

This directive is significant as it routes the complaint directly to the agency already tasked with the primary investigation. On October 13, the Supreme Court had transferred the probe into the Karur stampede to the CBI, citing the need for a fair and impartial inquiry. The Court had also appointed a supervisory committee, headed by former Supreme Court Judge Ajay Rastogi, to monitor the progress of the CBI's investigation.

By directing the petitioner to the CBI, the Supreme Court has effectively placed the allegations of witness intimidation and official misconduct under the purview of the same independent investigation, ensuring that the integrity of the main probe is not compromised. The matter has been listed for further hearing on December 12.

SC Clarifies Madras HC Order in Madras Race Club Land Dispute

In a separate proceeding, a Supreme Court bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan addressed the ongoing property dispute between the Madras Race Club and the State of Tamil Nadu. The Court declined to interfere with an interim order from the Madras High Court that permitted the state government to proceed with public works on land leased by the club in Guindy.

However, the apex court issued a crucial clarification, circumscribing the scope of the permitted activities. The bench held that the state's permission to carry out works would be limited to those "required for the eco park" and would remain "subject to the final decision" of the High Court in the main suit.

The dispute stems from the Tamil Nadu government's termination of the race club's lease on September 6, 2024. The Madras Race Club challenged this action by filing a suit in the High Court, which initially granted an interim order of "status quo."

The state government appealed this interim order to a Division Bench, arguing that the "status quo" was hindering essential public interest projects, including the strengthening of a pond and the development of a proposed eco-park. The state highlighted the urgency, particularly with the onset of the monsoon season and the risk of flooding if the works were not completed.

The High Court's Division Bench, invoking Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963—which prevents injunctions that could impede or delay infrastructure projects—modified the single judge's order. It permitted the state to proceed with the projects, classifying them as infrastructure works in the public interest.

The Supreme Court, while upholding the High Court's decision not to halt the works, has now introduced a vital legal safeguard. By clarifying that the permission is conditional and tied directly to the final outcome of the litigation, the Court has balanced the state's public interest argument with the proprietary rights of the Madras Race Club, which are yet to be adjudicated. The special leave petition filed by the club was disposed of with this clarification.